Slitherine

As Kerensky said:

If you want to talk StuG, I recommend a new thread.

Some points to keep in mind about the StuG:

It has drawbacks, especially very poor artillery range.

Sure it's great in 1941 when it's brand new, but what happens when T34/43s, T34/85s, and other heavier armor starts to show up?
What will become of your StuG IIIBs, upgrade into StuH42 I assume, but what makes you think the StuH42 is going to be good at supporting units against armored attack?
So as great as the IIIB, what will become of it in the future? Somehow I don't see it being overpowered, let alone useful, in 1942 or 1943 or beyond.

(Part of why Im thinking the StuH42 needs an overhaul, maybe it *should* be the direct upgrade over the StuGIIIB.)

I think that wouldn't be bad. What values did you have for the StuH42 in mind? Weaker HA but better SA and range 2? Then it would become less good at stopping enemy armor and leave that to the AT-StuGs.

Currently the StuH 42 has 12 SA and 5 HA, range 1 in ART mode, with 5 ammo. Interesting to note that in assault mode, it has 10 SA, the best of any German armor unit, so that's a nice niche for it. It's not a AT weapon at all.

The StuG IV is the AT weapon, it has 7 SA and 10 HA in ART mode, with 6 ammo. And a very nice 15 HA in assault mode. Its stats in assault mode are very similar to the StuG IIIG, which does not have an artillery mode, yet the StuG IV is 6 prestige cheaper. I'd actually argue for either a prestige increase for the StuG IV or a prestige reduction for the StuG IIIG for mp, because there's no reason for me to get the StuG IIIG when there's a nearly identical unit with the ability to switch into an artillery piece.

Monkspider said:

deducter wrote: I also recommend reducing the power of the StuG IIIB for v1.05, unless for some reason no one else agrees it is overpowered...

monkspider wrote: Deduct, I really didn't think the STUG was overpowered, it is quite useful, yes, but they still get slaughtered pretty easily by T-34s and even the light Soviet tanks seem like they can do a number on them. The amount of STUGs I went through in the campaign should speak to that. Do you have any particular experiences that stand out in making you think that they are overpowered? It is definitely a unique unit I will grant you, I don't think the Soviets or other nations have an analogous unit that I can think of.

deducter wrote:
My StuG IIIB were all 3 stars, so that's 13 GD vs. 8 HA for T34/40. Once, one of mine was attacked twice by tanks and once by conscripts, when it was in a swamp, and it still survived (with 3 str). The other thing is their insane firepower that is amazing when covering my own tanks, so that any attempts to attack me were just crushing defeats for the Soviets. They also have 8 ammunition and 110% rate of fire, and cost a mere 221 prestige. Maybe I'm just using them in a particularly effective way though...

Longasc wrote:The StuG IIIB is a really good unit, almost worth its own thread though.

Other nations need something like that as well, put a StuG in the middle of infantry or tanks and you raise their survivability and support their offense immensely through artillery fire and extra fort busting capabilities.

As I really <3 this unit I don't want to nerf it but I have to agree with deducter, it's too good. I had this impression several times during the 41 campaign, there is almost no situation where the StuG IIIB isn't an extremely valuable helper.

P.S. Infantry attacking a StuG IIIB might not fire a single shot. Boom! Suppressed. The same for units defended by the StuG.

Kerensky wrote:If you want to talk StuG, I recommend a new thread.

Some points to keep in mind about the StuG:

It has drawbacks, especially very poor artillery range. It's hardly an artillery unit at all, its a support unit.

Sure it's great in 1941 when it's brand new, but what happens when T34/43s, T34/85s, and other heavier armor starts to show up?
What will become of your StuG IIIBs, upgrade into StuH42 I assume, but what makes you think the StuH42 is going to be good at supporting units against armored attack?
So as great as the IIIB, what will become of it in the future? Somehow I don't see it being overpowered, let alone useful, in 1942 or 1943 or beyond.

(Part of why Im thinking the StuH42 needs an overhaul, maybe it *should* be the direct upgrade over the StuGIIIB.)

As Comrade General Kerensky requested, here is the dedicated STuG thread. I think we are all fans of the STuG now. I really appreciate how it serves such a unique role and I think it can serve as a model for rehabilitating all sorts of underused units.

I tended to lose STuGs easily, so I wasn't convinced of their OP'ed status but better players than I like Deducter and Longsac seemed to use them to especially devastating effect. I wonder if they could lose their artillery function of defensive fire and serve as a new paradigm of"support class" units that can take close range pot shots with without risking return fire. It sounds like part of what makes them possibly overpowered is their ability to back up panzers with defensive barrages and as Kerensky said, it is meant as a support unit, not an artillery unit.

deducter wrote:Currently the StuH 42 has 12 SA and 5 HA, range 1 in ART mode, with 5 ammo. Interesting to note that in assault mode, it has 10 SA, the best of any German armor unit, so that's a nice niche for it. It's not a AT weapon at all.

The StuG IV is the AT weapon, it has 7 SA and 10 HA in ART mode, with 6 ammo. And a very nice 15 HA in assault mode. Its stats in assault mode are very similar to the StuG IIIG, which does not have an artillery mode, yet the StuG IV is 6 prestige cheaper. I'd actually argue for either a prestige increase for the StuG IV or a prestige reduction for the StuG IIIG for mp, because there's no reason for me to get the StuG IIIG when there's a nearly identical unit with the ability to switch into an artillery piece.

Good point except:

62 StuG IIIG 3 353 7 39 5 1 0 7 4 16 -1 1 16 13 2 1 0 StuG_IIIG.png 12.1.1943 1.1.1946 0 StuG III Ausf. G fixedt StuGAT

88 StuG IV 4 347 6 53 5 1 2 3 7 10 -1 1 15 12 1 1 0 StuG_IV_ATY.png 28.12.1943 1.1.1946 0 11 Sturmgeschutz IV nopurchase StuGAT 52


The StuG IIIG exists for all of 1943. The StuG IV only comes into play at the VERY end of 1943.
(Keep in mind this is the European way of date tracking, its DAY MONTH YEAR not the American MONTH DAY YEAR.)

62 StuG IIIG 3 353 7 39 5 1 0 7 4 16 -1 1 16 13 2 1 0 StuG_IIIG.png 12.1.1943 1.1.1946 0 StuG III Ausf. G fixedt StuGAT

88 StuG IV 4 347 6 53 5 1 2 3 7 10 -1 1 15 12 1 1 0 StuG_IV_ATY.png 28.12.1943 1.1.1946 0 11 Sturmgeschutz IV nopurchase StuGAT 52


The StuG IIIG exists for all of 1943. The StuG IV only comes into play at the VERY end of 1943.

Oh I completely agree, if this were for single player. But I'm speaking of course, of Hylan, Bocage, and the Frozen North.

Completely off topic, I still think the SU-100 is still too powerful relative to the T34-85. That latter is more expensive and more vulnerable. So while German strategy is quite different, I'm still getting the old JS2/SU-100 combo for my Soviet armor.

But this is the same problem all over again.

T34/85 is an early 1944 unit. Su-100 is a late 1944 unit.

If we buff the T34/85 even MORE, and then we have a scenario set let's say... June 1944. Then the T34/85 is broken.

It's unavoidable that better technology will cause early units to become outdated and not efficient or optimal to buy. This is unavoidable.

The BEST solution is we need more content that has the StuG IIIG but doesnt have the StuGIV. Content that has the T34/85 but does not have the su-100 available.

And BTW, there are more Russian surprises on the horizon (check your equipment file for details) but we are not supposed to talk about them yet. So don't talk about them.

Do you guys have any thoughts of my idea of taking away the STuG's defensive fire abilities? It would still be useful for it's role in aiding assaults. This could be expanded to a being a new unit trait even, that is being able to fire with impunity and inflict suppression and being more durable than artillery but requiring close range and not having the defensive fire capabilities of artillery. Other unloved units like the towed anti-tank guns could have this same characteristic and I think it would add a really interesting new dimension to combat.

The problem with more specialized rules is the complaint that knowledge of them is hidden. People are already up in arms over things like [1] not consuming ammo anymore or items like Rate of Fire, I don't think it's a good idea to keep adding 'hidden' attributes.

Personally, I think the StuG IIIB is fine. It's powerful, useful, and a smart player is highly encouraged to get at least one, and possibly 2 or three. But are all of your artillery pieces StuG IIIBs? I bet people are still using Wurfrahmen and 150mm towed guns, I know I sure am.

So, as good as the StuG IIIB is, it's not making all other artillery obsolete, and the StuG IIIB is very much in danger of becoming obsolete as early as 1942.



StuH 42 comments:

I already redesigned the stats, but based on the success of the StuG IIIB, I'm thinking about tweaking it more:

In arty mode:
Increase ammo to 6 (+1)
Hard attack to 6, which is the same as a towed arty 105, but 2 less than the StuG IIIB. (+1)

In anti-tank mode:
Increase ammo to 6. (+1)
Increase soft attack to 11. (+1)

So the StuH 42 is very special purpose anti-soft target. It's actually worse than the IIIB at supporting against hard targets, but shines as a close support urban assault vehicle.
This, along with the Panzer IIIN (let's face it, the only other thing Panzer IIIs are good for is making StuGs, the Panzer IV F2 (and later models) blows the performance of the Panzer IIIJ (and later models) away no question) will hopefully be attractive units for the player to have in their core come Stalingrad and for other future urban battles like Warsaw and Streets of Moscow.

So while the STuH42 is a fantastic anti-infantry and anti-soft unit, it will flounder against mid and late war Soviet armor, especially against anything with an 85mm gun or higher, which start appearing in 1943, the year after the StuH42 of 1942 appears.

The T34/43 against StuH in ATG form is 1-3, and the T34/85 makes it 0-5. Both in favor of the Russians, of course.

StuH 42: 06.10.1942 (that's 6. August, for all Americans out there. Remember, Euro date format)

That's the date the StuG IIIB will be phased out.

Despite the lower HA the StuH 42 has a massive +5 GD upgrade and better soft-attack plus can switch between "AT" or rather Anti-Infantry and support artillery modes. Sounds quite reasonable and it will be even better for urban warfare.


The effectiveness of the IIIB in the 1941 DLC is indeed due to the very good support it provides and rather weak armored opposition. Monkspider recognized that but I think Kerensky explained why there should not be a special artillery rule for this kind of StuG and that the glory of the StuG IIIB won't last forever. It would not be a bad idea to encourage StuG use in this period so that people have 1-3 experienced StuG IIIB's ready to get upgraded to StuH42 in 1942.
Will the StuH42 retain the fort killer trait? It won't be as effective in that role due to lower HA in any case.


What could be lower for the StuG IIIB and what would reduce is effectiveness somewhat is the HA value. It's 9, that's Panzer IIIH level and better than that of the Panzer IVF.

Actually I believe that date is October 6th, 1942. Just before Stalingrad, although that date is a little late in my opinion. I might try to move it up.

And the StuH 42 only has fort killer in it's artillery mode... perhaps it should also have fort killer trait in its anti-tank mode?

This is what I mean by 'redesign of the Stuh42', we're still trying to figure out exactly what role we want for it.

I don't know why I said August.

http://panther-panzer.de/StuGIII/StuH42.htm

-> 2nd October 1942 was when the StuH 42 prototype started combat trials. So 6. October is quite accurate, though it is indeed quite late for a StuH "42".